What kids are reading

Status
Not open for further replies.

HelloKiddo

bemused observer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
777
Reaction score
151
This could apply to adult readers as well, if you want to take the discussion there.

I’m wondering how you, as writers, feel about the argument that children receive few or no benefits from reading what many academics think of as “literary slop”.

The most famous proponent of this argument (as far as I know) is literary critic Harold Bloom. He argues that “mediocrity benefits no one” and that reading books he considers to be mediocre will not help our children much.

Why read, if what you read will not enrich mind or spirit or personality?
I was told that children would now read only J.K. Rowling, and I was asked whether that wasn't, after all, better than reading nothing at all? If Rowling was what it took to make them pick up a book, wasn't that a good thing?

It is not. "Harry Potter" will not lead our children on to Kipling's "Just So Stories" or his "Jungle Book." It will not lead them to Thurber's "Thirteen Clocks" or Kenneth Grahame's "Wind in the Willows" or Lewis Carroll's "Alice."
When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.
^^^Emphasis mine. He means that as an insult, suggesting that reading mediocre books as children will lead to reading mediocre books in adulthood.

A couple links:

http://wrt-brooke.syr.edu/courses/205.03/bloom.html
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...les/2003/09/24/dumbing_down_american_readers/


The case is made that Harry Potter demands nothing of its readers and does not challenge them to think.

I will take this argument one step further with Twilight. If Harry Potter does not encourage its readers to think, Twilight actually discourages its readers from thinking. The book makes no sense. If you try to read it actively and think about the plot you’ll go crazy because much of what is in the book is nonsense.

What do you think? Do reading books like Harry Potter and Twilight benefit children?
 

blueobsidian

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
487
Reaction score
53
Location
Oregon
Website
writersblocks.blogspot.com
I think that argument is ridiculous. My mom is a junior high librarian in a very poor city -- in fact, many of these junior high students only read at a first or second grade reading level. However, many kids who had never had an interest in reading would come in to check out Twilight and Harry Potter. And many of those kids KEPT coming back for new books in a variety of subjects. Those books helped them discover that they could enjoy reading.
 

Cyia

Rewriting My Destiny
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
18,615
Reaction score
4,029
Location
Brillig in the slithy toves...
If nothing else, plowing through a book the size of HP or Twilight is good practice - especially for a kid who has trouble focusing or reading. It holds their interest, and if they can go through 500 pages, then that next assigned 100-200 might not look so daunting.
 

Salis

You Lie!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
725
Reaction score
91
It is, in my opinion, a really, really stupid argument, but it represents a really unclosable gap in what people want from books.

Personally, I want a book to entertain or challenge or interest me in some way. I don't mind at all if it doesn't change my life, or doesn't solve intractable philosophical problems (whatever the hell that means).

Some people (the 'literary' crowd, I guess?) want their reading to be really meaningful, though.

You can see this divide in most 'art'. You've got the people who want art that entertains them (the silent majority), the people who want art that changes them or is very meaningful in some way (the silent minority), and then you have the people who want meaningful art for the sake of sneering at anything that isn't 'meaningful' (the loud minority).
 

aquacat

.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
238
Reaction score
61
Harold Bloom is an elitist jackass. He also believes that the push to include more marginal literature - like that written by women and minorities - in the classroom has dumbed down readers and weakened education. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I think it's important to instill a love of reading in kids, period. If you can do that you can slowly introduce them to more "literary" works, but if you force them to only read what's on the "approved reading lists" when they're not interested you might turn them off to reading for good. I read lots of genre fiction as a kid (horror, sci-fi and fantasy mostly), and I still enjoy a good potboiler or trashy romance, but that doesn't mean I don't also appreciate Proust and Saramago or understand the value of having a cannon, as limited and problematic as it can often be.
 

Christine N.

haz a shiny new book cover
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,705
Reaction score
1,336
Location
Where the Wild Things Are
Website
www.christine-norris.com
Blah. A book is a book. Getting kids excited about reading is hard enough without forcing them to read books written 100 years before they were born. My mother tried that with me - giving me the Witch of Blackbird Pond and Wind in the Willows. I didn't appreciate any of them until I was older, and was happy with my Madeline L'Engle and Roald Dahl.

I love that kids love Harry Potter and Percy Jackson and are excited to read them. It's all about loving to read, and far too few kids have learned to love it. Forcing them to read antiquated tomes that they can't relate to is part of the problem, I think. When kids tell me they hate to read, I say they just haven't found the right book yet.

Once they build their confidence on stuff like this bullethead is putting down, they can work up to meatier stuff like Kurt Vonnegut and George Orwell and it won't intimidate them. Kids don't care about meaning - they want fun.
 
Last edited:

brainstorm77

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 16, 2006
Messages
14,627
Reaction score
2,057
Not all people read to think... Some just like to be entertained and look at it as such. I enjoyed Twilight, yes it was simple to read but big deal, it is what it is.
 

ChristineR

What happened?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
1,307
Reaction score
124
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan. Downtown. Near the Universi
Why does he think Harry Potter is mediocre slop and his favorites are literature? I think Rowling's seven book saga does a better job of "enriching mind, spirit, and personality" than Kipling, but then, I hate Kipling. Not that Rowling is the most profound thing ever written, but really, neither is Alice.
 

The Rav

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
161
Reaction score
17
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Website
ejkwritingspot.blogspot.com
I hate people who get up on soapboxes and preach that books they don't like are slop that don't deserve to be read. People have different taste in things, be it books, art, movies, whatever. Those who think the only things worth reading are "classics" and "literary titles," and those who don't read them aren't really reading need to pull their heads out from, well, you know. ;) I heard countless stories of parents saying that their child never read anything before Harry Potter, and now that child is browsing the book aisles of the bookstore rather than just the video game or teenie-bopper magazines (not that I condone children reading those, either, as long as their reading, it's just nice that their horizons are being broadened! :D ). I'm guessing the Twilight series has done much of the same. It just makes me mad when pompous, er, people have to tell everyone that if children (and adults for that matter) aren't reading classics, they're wasting their time. I just wish they'd climb down from their soapbox and crawl under a rock somewhere, leaving us all alone.

(And now I'll crawl down off my own soapbox, thank you very much. ;) :D )
 

happywritermom

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
135
My son is 9 years old and he's on book seven of the Harry Potter series (My husband reads him a few pages at night and then he reads on his own until he falls asleep). He's also on book four of 39 Clues. All of which Bloom would consider junk. Yet, he's also read both Wind in the Willows and Jungle Book along with Gulliver's Travels , lots of mythology and many other "classic" titles. His favorite books are science books, like the National Geographic universe book. When he doesn't feel like thinking too hard though, he reads Diary of a Wimpy Kid or the Weird School books. He even reads his old Dr. Suess books just for fun.
He reads whatever his mood dictates.

My 7-year-old daughter is reading both Warriors and Dear Dumb Diary right now. Sometimes, she reads the Tinker Bell books for fun. She also rereads her old picture books and, for a while, she was really into Captian Underpants. She doesn't like books that are too emotional because she has so many emotional issues of her own. (OCD, high anxiety, etc.)

When I was a kid, I read old social studies textbooks, Grimms fairy tales and Harliquin romances. And yes, I read VC Andrews in eighth grade. Nowadays, I read mostly literary fiction. But I have to admit, when I'm on the elliptical at the YMCA, I read People magazine or Us, anything to take my mind off reality.

Bloom's attitude toward literature reflects an attitude of intollerence and supremacy.
He's is not someone I ever want to hang out with.
And I sure don't want to raise a bunch of little Blooms.
 
Last edited:

happywritermom

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
135
PS.
Personally, I loved the Percy Jackson books. I read them to my son and got annoyed with him whenever he sneaked them and read ahead. What an awesome imagination that guy has!
 

Izz

Doing the Space Operatic
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
8,265
Reaction score
2,550
Location
NZ
Website
www.justgoodfiction.com
Circular and ridiculous argument.

It's akin to saying that if the first car i own is a model or brand commonly derided--let's pick one, say, a Skoda--that i'm either going to be put off cars and never drive again, or I'm only ever going to buy cheap and nasty cars, and never want to own--let's pick a model commonly elevated as being amazing--a Porsche.

Lessee, when i was growing up i read The Hardy Boys and other kid adventure books, which i'm sure Bloom and other literary critics would equate to Harry Potter today. But, hmm, that didn't stop me from reading The Jungle Book or Wind in the Willows or Alice. And it's likely that without the introductory reading of more 'mediocre' books i wouldn't have read those classics, because i wouldn't have had the reading stamina to do so.

Sure, i in no way think that The Hardy Boys and a lot of the other books i read as a kid are amazingly crafted, and i have no issue with deconstructing the writing of those and popular books today to determine why they're not well-written (otherwise how am i going to improve my craft) but they helped me to enjoy reading.

A person can't run a marathon without training. And how does one start off their training if they've never run before? With a four-hour running session? No. Most likely, it'll be ten or fifteen minutes, and they'll gradually improve their stamina until they can train for absurd lengths of time. Similar principle applies to books, i think. Sure, some people may never read more than what are termed the 'mediocre' books, but hey, not everybody runs marathons either.

Any argument like the one in the OP is riddled with fallacious and erroneous reasoning based on personal preference and a patronizing attitude. In fact, arguments like that probably do more damage than good if they're trying to get people to expand their reading horizons. After all, if i read 'literary slop' then i must be a pig, right? And those who only read 'enriching' literature (which they have defined to be enriching) and deride the 'literary slop' (which they have defined to be slop) must be much better than me, and think themselves so too. And who wants to emulate or associate with people who treat those outside their 'sphere' like they're pigs in a sty?
 
Last edited:

DeadlyAccurate

Absolutely Fazed
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
2,536
Reaction score
522
Location
Fort Worth, Texas
Website
www.carlaharker.com
PS.
Personally, I loved the Percy Jackson books. I read them to my son and got annoyed with him whenever he sneaked them and read ahead. What an awesome imagination that guy has!

Me, too. Also loved HP. Have no interest in Twilight, but I read plenty of books like it when I was younger. A love of reading when I was young meant reading a lot of what the elitists consider slop. But without that love of reading, I would not have picked up books by Dickens, Twain, Eco, or the Baroness Orczy on my own. Almost every book I had to read at school (you know, literature?) was a book I intensely disliked (go ahead, ask me my opinion of Of Mice And Men), but the stuff I picked up on my own, even the classics, were books I love.

I still read lots of "slop." Because I read to be entertained. But I'm far more likely to read something the elitists consider "worthwhile" because no one tried to shove their idea of worthy literature down my throat as a child.
 

wannawrite

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
819
Reaction score
248
Location
Kansas
Website
www.kcwildwood.net
My (15) daughter loved Harry Potter, and worships Twilight. All I know is that she hated reading 'til a couple of years back, then found and devoured those. She has since moved on to worship Meg Cabot, and Tamora Pierce. She likes Michele Bardsley, and just about anything else vampire related. I, personally, think this is a great thing. Maybe she is not filling her brain with vaulted words of wisdom. But she has learned to love reading, and I have witnessed her boundaries expanding. Her vocabulary has increased, and she is becoming educated in the world beyond things that they teach in school. (the other day she asked about Darwin, and creationism, because it was mentioned in passing in one of her books. Is that a bad thing? I think not) Anyway, I thank the authors who helped to light her way. Yes, that even includes Meyers, although I am not particularly a fan.

So, is reading sludge beneficial to a child? Uh...yeah.
 

WendyNYC

fiddle-dee-dee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
2,371
Reaction score
1,765
Location
Behind you! Boo.
I think there is room for both. The books I read *to* my children are rich in vocabulary and slightly above their reading level. They read what he would consider "literary slop" as well, for entertainment, but I also want them to read books that challenge them. Challenging doesn't have to equal boring, and, in many cases, the tougher ones have proven to be their favorite books they read over and over. Luckily, their school librarian puts together a fantastic list to make it easy for me (and them) to choose.
 

Storm Dream

Into the blue memory
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
229
Reaction score
17
Location
Orange County
I'd tell Harold Bloom where he could stick his statement, but I'd end up getting targeted by the literary police.

Recently I saw a lot of student films at my roommate's graduation (she went to film school). Quite a few of them were more concerned with being 'art' than actually being entertaining, which is how I view a lot of literary fiction.

Art doesn't interest me. I read for entertainment. The literary crap I read in school didn't stick with me -the lowbrow stuff did.
 

RG570

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
1,037
Reaction score
105
Location
British Columbia
Good taste is learned and practiced. That's just the way it is. By pandering to the now unguided tastes of children, you stunt their growth. This is why the anti-intellectual attitude is so acceptable these days. The middle class generation now running the world was pandered to and is directly responsible for the systematic dumbing-down of everything. Their only defence, which is quite weak, is that anyone who criticizes this is "elitist."

The point of school is not to be fun, but to train a person's mind. This should involve things that are hard and uncomfortable, not fun little things to keep the kid interested so they don't drop out. Once they understand exactly why good literature (or scotch or music or whatever) is good, they will enjoy it.

Pouting and saying "Harry Potter is as good as John Updike" is one of the most frightening symptoms of a growing trend in society towards permanent youthful insolence. Now "grow up" just means rack up credit card debt and get a mortgage. Everything else stays in the 15 year old mindset. Screw that.
 

happywritermom

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
135
Good taste is learned and practiced. That's just the way it is. By pandering to the now unguided tastes of children, you stunt their growth. This is why the anti-intellectual attitude is so acceptable these days. The middle class generation now running the world was pandered to and is directly responsible for the systematic dumbing-down of everything. Their only defence, which is quite weak, is that anyone who criticizes this is "elitist."

The point of school is not to be fun, but to train a person's mind. This should involve things that are hard and uncomfortable, not fun little things to keep the kid interested so they don't drop out. Once they understand exactly why good literature (or scotch or music or whatever) is good, they will enjoy it.

Pouting and saying "Harry Potter is as good as John Updike" is one of the most frightening symptoms of a growing trend in society towards permanent youthful insolence. Now "grow up" just means rack up credit card debt and get a mortgage. Everything else stays in the 15 year old mindset. Screw that.

Now, I don't think anyone ever said Harry Potter is as good as John Updike. The two cannot be compared. The authors write in entirely different genres.

I'm guessing you are not a teacher. If you were, you would know that what children read outside of school and what they read in school for the purposes of teaching and "training their minds" is also entirely different. Regardless of the text, the point of reading fiction with a class or for a class is to teach students how to analyze and how to organize their thoughts. You can do that with Harry Potter, but it's much easier to do with John Updike's stories. It's easier because John Updike's works are more contained and less distracting. It's more effective to focus students on just a few general ideas that they can then work with more specifically, especially when you are working with students who have varying ability levels.

So really, the works that are easier to teach are often the works that end up becoming "classics." What they read outside the classroom doesn't really matter as long as they are still reading. Outside the classroom, they are, hopefully, reading books that take them new places; expose them to new ideas or cultures; encourage their imaginations; and expand their vocabularies. Harry Potter does that. The Jungle Book does that. Nancy Drew does that. Even Captian Underpants does that.
 

Salis

You Lie!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
725
Reaction score
91
Actually, that argument is even funnier (or, more bluntly, stupid) because many of the novels and works that are now considered literary greats (see Dickens) were considered pulpy trash and unimportant crowd-pleasers in their time.

In other words, there is no lock on what is a 'nourishing' literary great, and what is self-gratifying trash. The perception changes over time. There's a few genuine arguments to be made about good vs. bad writing, but most of the 'what is popular is bad!' arguments are a differentiating smoke-screen, really no more profound than saying that owning a Mac makes you a more artistic person than owning a PC, because less people have one.
 
Last edited:

Christine N.

haz a shiny new book cover
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,705
Reaction score
1,336
Location
Where the Wild Things Are
Website
www.christine-norris.com
When you LIKE to read, you do it more often. You WANT to read. When it's hard for you to read, because all you ever read is the stuff they force you read in school, or you don't ever read anything else, you begin to loathe doing it. Then when you leave school and there's no one to make you, you STOP doing it. Then you have a tough time in life, because LIFE IS READING.

So don't get all high and mighty - there's room for children to read Harry Potter as well as Dickens. It's not an either/or. But having a child that likes to read because he can do it well and it's not a chore isn't a terrible thing, either.

(above poster is correct: Dickens, Shelley, and Austen were all considered pop culture trash when they were first published.)
 

Matera the Mad

Bartender, gimme a Linux Mint
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
13,979
Reaction score
1,533
Location
Wisconsin's (sore) thumb
Website
www.firefromthesky.org
I'm sure I read lots of potboilers when I was young. I enjoy Harry Potter now, even though I sometimes get an editing itch from it. I also enjoyed classics. Some people may have read good stuff when they were young, but are lost in a bog of slushy romance now. I say let 'em read. Whatever. Just make sure all the options are available. The worst influence on modern youth is the Evil Grandmother, the box in the living room.
 

blueobsidian

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
487
Reaction score
53
Location
Oregon
Website
writersblocks.blogspot.com
I spent part elementary school voraciously reading the Babysitters Club books. I read two a week, and reread them when I ran out. That didn't stop me from growing to love Shakespeare starting in the 8th grade, when we read Taming of the Shrew in advanced English.

I would say that the problem isn't kids reading Harry Potter, but kids being parked in front of the television for entertainment. I maybe watched 2 hours of television per week when I was a kid, but I read a book every day or two and played outside with my friends.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.